Chambered LP's

[GibsonByBirth]

Excuse me if this has become a tired suject on this site. I tried the search option and found it difficult to skim through the topic.

 

I just bought my custom last week. I had plan to buy a supreme. I chose the custom because I was able to find a new one that wasn't chambered. I want the full weight of the nonchambered LP. I never even plugged in a chambered LP.

 

Last year I purched from zzounds a double cut LP. It was a beauty, but when I picked it up, it didn't have that solid feel of a LP. I sent it back right away and swore never to buy a guitar without having held it first.

 

I can't get past the weight issue. Am I missing something? Should I have plugged one in? What are the benefits of a chambered body? Don't say lighter weight. That is a deal breaker for me.

[Tim Plains]

Weight of a guitar is personal preference.

Are you missing something? Well, why don't you just go to a music store and plug on in?

Chambered LPs resonate more than ones with (9) weight-relief holes. 20% - 30% according to Gibson.

The light weight is definitely an advantage; especially, if you have a bad back or something.

 

What year is your Custom?

If it has an 8-digit serial number or a serial number beginning with CS, it does not have a solid body so you know.

 

I have one chambered LP. Mind you, it's a historic reissue but a chambered LP, nonetheless.

It's a fantastic guitar and sounded better than my solid '58 reissue before I upgraded that guitar's electronics.

[GibsonByBirth]

I believe it to be an 09. I bought it new from Guitar Center last Friday. The serial number is cs89435. It feels solid around 10 or 11 pounds. The sellsman said it was a nonchambered. It has great substain. Is that what you mean by resonate? Did I understand you right, chambered have more substain than nonchamered?

[uburoibob]

I believe it to be an 09. I bought it new from Guitar Center last Friday. The serial number is cs89435. It feels solid around 10 or 11 pounds. The sellsman said it was a nonchambered. It has great substain. Is that what you mean by resonate? Did I understand you right' date=' chambered have more substain than nonchamered?[/quote']

 

To understand "resonate", think "sustain WITH the sound of the body". You can get great sustain by attaching a string to a slab of concrete or solid steel - no audio energy going into the concrete or steel leaves the string free to sustain a good long time. But that's just the sound of the string. Heavy, non-resonant guitars do that. Lighter guitars, where you can definitely hear the sound of the wood when you play without plugging in, resonate and can create sustain by the sting releasing audio energy into the wood body, causing it to vibrate, and the body, in turn, vibrating the string. The difference is, the SOUND of the guitar is transferred back into the vibration of the string and then into the pickup, into the amp, etc.

 

THIS is why lighter weight bursts from 58-60 are the ones everyone wanted. The lighter the mahogany, the more resonant, the more resonant, the more it sounded like the guitar than the string.

 

Gibson realized, with the chambered reissues, that they could harness this sound energy and, essentially, create the same basic resonance relationship between the guitar and the strings by creating an internally tuned port - the chamber - to allow the guitar's reciprocal arrangement with the string. The added benefit is the light weight of the instrument. ALL Les Paul's are chambered - you need chambers to drop the pickups into, to put the pots and electronics, to drop the switch into, to run the wires through - even the jack - it's ALL chambering.

 

Really it just comes down to what you like. Many people DON'T want to hear their guitar - they want the sustain of the string. For them, there are the exceptionally dense and heavy guitars. But others like the sound of the wood and body on the guitar. That's where the lighter ones come in.

 

If you are operating on a set of learned beliefs that have no experience behind them, I encourage you to get out and play and listen to as many guitars as you can to find the sound you like best. You MAY find that you like what you've been resisting. Or, you may find that you were on the right path to your own preference with the heavy ones.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Bob

[GibsonByBirth]

It does help.

"If you are operating on a set of learned beliefs that have no experience behind them, I encourage you to get out and play and listen to as many guitars as you can to find the sound you like best. You MAY find that you like what you've been resisting. Or, you may find that you were on the right path to your own preference with the heavy ones." Thanks Bob this is what I've been doing. Now that I know what resonence is, I will listen for it and try to base my beliefs on experince of sound not just feel. I do however prefer the heavy weight when playing. Now I will see if I can say the same about the sound.

[Andre S]

To understand "resonate"' date=' think "sustain WITH the sound of the body". You can get great sustain by attaching a string to a slab of concrete or solid steel - no audio energy going into the concrete or steel leaves the string free to sustain a good long time. But that's just the sound of the string. Heavy, non-resonant guitars do that. Lighter guitars, where you can definitely hear the sound of the wood when you play without plugging in, resonate and can create sustain by the sting releasing audio energy into the wood body, causing it to vibrate, and the body, in turn, vibrating the string. The difference is, the SOUND of the guitar is transferred back into the vibration of the string and then into the pickup, into the amp, etc.

 

THIS is why lighter weight bursts from 58-60 are the ones everyone wanted. The lighter the mahogany, the more resonant, the more resonant, the more it sounded like the guitar than the string.

 

Gibson realized, with the chambered reissues, that they could harness this sound energy and, essentially, create the same basic resonance relationship between the guitar and the strings by creating an internally tuned port - the chamber - to allow the guitar's reciprocal arrangement with the string. The added benefit is the light weight of the instrument. ALL Les Paul's are chambered - you need chambers to drop the pickups into, to put the pots and electronics, to drop the switch into, to run the wires through - even the jack - it's ALL chambering.

 

Really it just comes down to what you like. Many people DON'T want to hear their guitar - they want the sustain of the string. For them, there are the exceptionally dense and heavy guitars. But others like the sound of the wood and body on the guitar. That's where the lighter ones come in.

 

If you are operating on a set of learned beliefs that have no experience behind them, I encourage you to get out and play and listen to as many guitars as you can to find the sound you like best. You MAY find that you like what you've been resisting. Or, you may find that you were on the right path to your own preference with the heavy ones.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Bob[/quote']

 

Hell thats the most useful thing I read all day. :- =D>

[Tim Plains]

Very nice, Bob!

 

I believe it to be an 09. I bought it new from Guitar Center last Friday. The serial number is cs89435. It feels solid around 10 or 11 pounds.

It's actually a 2008. The 9' date='435th regular production guitar to come out of the Custom Shop in 2008.

Wow, that's a lot of guitars the Custom Shop is pumping out!

I have a 2007 LP Custom. The serial number is around 2,400 and I thought that was high up there.

 

This is what your guitar looks like with x-ray vision.

 

[img']http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg225/Gibson_Tim/1998LPstandardradiograph.jpg[/img]

[Thundergod]

There are chambered and swiss cheesed guitars that weight more than solid guitars.

 

The thing with the chambers and holes is the wood they use nowadays is heavier than the wood they used to use. Now they use normal wood for everything and that wood is heavy so they have to chamber it. They use the little amount of quality light wood they get for solid bodied historics.

 

Now... to say a guitar is more solid because of something that is (or isnt) inside of it is a little strange. They all feel prety solid to me.

[Thundergod]

I believe it to be an 09. I bought it new from Guitar Center last Friday. The serial number is cs89435. It feels solid around 10 or 11 pounds. The sellsman said it was a nonchambered. It has great substain. Is that what you mean by resonate? Did I understand you right' date=' chambered have more substain than nonchamered?[/quote']

 

 

GC people dont know anything most of the time so I wouldnt trust them BUT he is right, it is not a chambered guitar... but is it a solid body guitar? I don't think so.

[Andre S]

Very nice' date=' Bob!

 

 

It's actually a 2008. The 9,435th regular production guitar to come out of the Custom Shop in 2008.

Wow, that's a lot of guitars the Custom Shop is pumping out!

I have a 2007 LP Custom. The serial number is around 2,400 and I thought that was high up there.

 

This is what your guitar looks like with x-ray vision.

 

[img']http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg225/Gibson_Tim/1998LPstandardradiograph.jpg[/img]

You really ought to redo that Les Paul 101 thread, Tim. It was really informative.

[GibsonByBirth]

Very nice' date=' Bob!

 

 

It's actually a 2008. The 9,435th regular production guitar to come out of the Custom Shop in 2008.

Wow, that's a lot of guitars the Custom Shop is pumping out!

I have a 2007 LP Custom. The serial number is around 2,400 and I thought that was high up there.

 

This is what your guitar looks like with x-ray vision.

 

[img']http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg225/Gibson_Tim/1998LPstandardradiograph.jpg[/img]

 

 

That image is a little hard to see. I had to copy and expand it. So I guess I have a 08 custom with 9 holes. I like its weight and now I need to learn its resonance.

 

I have learned alot here today.

[GibsonByBirth]

055404 Is the serial number of my classic. I bought it on 01/16/06. I guess it is an 05? Does anyone have any X-rays of it?

[Tim Plains]

^ yeah, it's a 2005.

This should help you figuring out Gibson serial numbers. http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Support/SerialNumberSearch/

Those 9 holes are referred to as "weight-relief" holes. A slang expression is "swiss cheese" holes.

Your 2005 Classic would also have swiss cheese holes.

 

Post some pictures of your guitars.

That type of behavior is encouraged around here.

[80LPC]

You can get great sustain by attaching a string to a slab of concrete or solid steel - no audio energy going into the concrete or steel leaves the string free to sustain a good long time. But that's just the sound of the string. Heavy' date=' non-resonant guitars do that.[/quote']

 

Actually, they don't do that because :

 

a) There's no concrete in guitars... and

 

All conventionally made guitars have modes of resonance dependant on factors such as the shape, timber selection - every piece being different of course, dimensions, method of construction such as laminations etc. Then there's bolt-on, set-neck or neck-through factors. Compare a heavy 'solid' LP with a heavy Yamaha SG3000 and you can hear they are quite different... Heavy guitars have resonance - in fact it is impossible for them to not resonate. The resonance will be different to lighter guitars of course, for example heavier guitars are often cited as being preferable when using high gain.

 

THIS is why lighter weight bursts from 58-60 are the ones everyone wanted.

 

Not quite...Lack of demand - even with a fancy top meant that Gibson stopped making them and introduced the SG.

 

Really it just comes down to what you like. Many people DON'T want to hear their guitar - they want the sustain of the string. For them' date=' there are the exceptionally dense and heavy guitars. But others like the sound of the wood and body on the guitar. That's where the lighter ones come in.

Bob[/quote']

 

Well said, but I would just say that you will never hear only the sustain of the string - there's always something else going on !

[uburoibob]

Actually' date=' they don't do that because :

 

a) There's no concrete in guitars... and

 

All conventionally made guitars have modes of resonance dependant on factors such as the shape, timber selection - every piece being different of course, dimensions, method of construction such as laminations etc. Then there's bolt-on, set-neck or neck-through factors. Compare a heavy 'solid' LP with a heavy Yamaha SG3000 and you can hear they are quite different... Heavy guitars have resonance - in fact it is impossible for them to not resonate. The resonance will be different to lighter guitars of course, for example heavier guitars are often cited as being preferable when using high gain.

 

 

 

Not quite...Lack of demand - even with a fancy top meant that Gibson stopped making them and introduced the SG.

 

 

 

Well said, but I would just say that you will never hear only the sustain of the string - there's [i']always [/i] something else going on !

 

There were several concrete guitars made in the 70s to prove the point about sustain.

 

For purposes of this discussion, I was comparing Les Pauls with Les Pauls. So, shape, bolt ons, etc are not really a factor. Nor is Yamaha.

Heavy guitars DO have resonance - it's just not as loud or sympathetic. Since weight is generally a factor of density, the greater the density the less resonance.

 

Finally, you are correct that the 58-60 LP didn't sell well when it came out, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

I meant that the LP Standard guitars of 58-60 are the most desirable, and have been since the mid 60s, because of their sound which is directly attributable to their greater resonance. It's why the Norlin ones were pretty universally hated when they came out - everyone wanted exactly the opposite of that sound. Of course, those guitars found their niche - but the niche did not exist when they were being produced.

 

Bob

[jnastynebr]

You just need to play one and compare. I would never refuse to buy or play a guitar that has feature X just because I think that I don't like it.

[80LPC]

There were several concrete guitars made in the 70s to prove the point about sustain.

 

For purposes of this discussion' date=' I was comparing Les Pauls with Les Pauls. So, shape, bolt ons, etc are not really a factor. Nor is Yamaha.

Heavy guitars DO have resonance - it's just not as loud or sympathetic. Since weight is generally a factor of density, the greater the density the less resonance.

 

Finally, you are correct that the 58-60 LP didn't sell well when it came out, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

I meant that the LP Standard guitars of 58-60 are the most desirable, and have been since the mid 60s, because of their sound which is directly attributable to their greater resonance. It's why the Norlin ones were pretty universally hated when they came out - everyone wanted exactly the opposite of that sound. Of course, those guitars found their niche - but the niche did not exist when they were being produced.

 

Bob[/quote']

 

You made a direct comparison with concrete and heavy guitars. This was clearly wrong and needed to be pointed out.

 

Information on concrete guitars seems to be thin on the ground. I found these two examples with concrete bodies. One seems to have 'surprising resonance'. Here's also a video of a concrete bodied guitar which sounds quite normal - apart from the intonation being out. If you know of other examples, I'd be interested to see them.

 

http://www.guitar-list.com/bizarre-guitars/concrete-guitar

http://www.wku.edu/news/releases06/september/guitar.html

 

By the way, we are talking about the same thing. LP production ceased because everyone wanted the opposite of that sound. Those '58 - '60 guitars found their niche in the mid '60s - a niche that did not exist when they were being produced...

[Laney1566]

SO does that mean that this Explorer is the Best sounding?

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Explorer/Gibson-USA/Holy-Explorer.aspx

[six-string]

To understand "resonate"' date=' think "sustain WITH the sound of the body". You can get great sustain by attaching a string to a slab of concrete or solid steel - no audio energy going into the concrete or steel leaves the string free to sustain a good long time. But that's just the sound of the string. Heavy, non-resonant guitars do that. Lighter guitars, where you can definitely hear the sound of the wood when you play without plugging in, resonate and can create sustain by the sting releasing audio energy into the wood body, causing it to vibrate, and the body, in turn, vibrating the string. The difference is, the SOUND of the guitar is transferred back into the vibration of the string and then into the pickup, into the amp, etc.

 

THIS is why lighter weight bursts from 58-60 are the ones everyone wanted. The lighter the mahogany, the more resonant, the more resonant, the more it sounded like the guitar than the string.

 

Gibson realized, with the chambered reissues, that they could harness this sound energy and, essentially, create the same basic resonance relationship between the guitar and the strings by creating an internally tuned port - the chamber - to allow the guitar's reciprocal arrangement with the string. The added benefit is the light weight of the instrument. ALL Les Paul's are chambered - you need chambers to drop the pickups into, to put the pots and electronics, to drop the switch into, to run the wires through - even the jack - it's ALL chambering.

 

Really it just comes down to what you like. Many people DON'T want to hear their guitar - they want the sustain of the string. For them, there are the exceptionally dense and heavy guitars. But others like the sound of the wood and body on the guitar. That's where the lighter ones come in.

 

If you are operating on a set of learned beliefs that have no experience behind them, I encourage you to get out and play and listen to as many guitars as you can to find the sound you like best. You MAY find that you like what you've been resisting. Or, you may find that you were on the right path to your own preference with the heavy ones.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Bob[/quote']

 

excellent post!

 

i would add that Gretsch created the chambered Duojet guitar back in the mid-1950s and it has been considered a classic ever since.

[DAS44]

The thing with the chambers and holes is the wood they use nowadays is heavier than the wood they used to use.

are you talking about weight un-reliveing? [-(/

 

You really ought to redo that Les Paul 101 thread' date=' Tim. It was really informative.[/quote]

+a google

[Blackie]

I liked the concrete SG......not enough to make or want one.

[daveinspain]

SO does that mean that this Explorer is the Best sounding?

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Explorer/Gibson-USA/Holy-Explorer.aspx

 

Why does that guitar remind me of a jackolantern?

 

 

 

 

 

Must be Halloween is coming up....

[Murph]

Wait?

 

Is my ES-339 chambered?

[Bluemoon]

My guess on the very early Les Pauls was that the wood was much older. Today, it is hard to find old-growth wood. It is either gone or old-growth forests are protected. Guitars are now made from new-growth, which is much younger and has a different character.

[uburoibob]

Wait?

 

Is my ES-339 chambered?

 

 

Good question. The answer is no, not in the same way. Your 339 is semi-hollow. The chamber in yours is not the function of removing wood from a solid piece to tune the guitar to resonate. Yours is hollow because four thin pieces of wood come together to form an acoustic chamber. Very different results from the solid-body chambering process, from a sound and feel point of view. People who refer to chambered guitars as semi-hollow, attempting to paint the experience of playing a chambered body Les Paul as something akin to playing a 335 or 339 are mistaken in doing so or are making a point that is not actually valid. These are very different guitars as anyone who has spent 5 minutes or more playing each can tell you.

 

Bob